When assault should be legal

[VanessaM]

I'm new to the board so to give you some background, I'm a twenty-one year old college student in Miami, Fl.

This evening I was in my ethics class and we were doing a case study about informing an employer about a potential hiree's past. The hiree in question was fired over sexual harassment allegations but due to the unwillingness of the victims to go to trial; he was given a severance package with a no disclosure agreement.

One of the members of my group went ahead and lambasted the women as liars because if they couldn't subject themselves to public scrutiny then obviously they were not telling the truth about the situation.

The entire case was hypothetical but it really put things in perspective over the victim blaming culture of the States. I've never been more offended and never wanted to crack a person over the head in my years in college.

Anyway, I just wanted to vent and share that with you all. What do you think, is the outrage justified or am I just being too sensitive?

[Sarah Louise]

Unfortunately it was just an accusation, unproven and untried so in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.  And if the company signed a non disclosure agreement, it could be considered against the law for someone to inform a new employer.

While it might be morally right to alert them to the possibility, it would be against the law and the informer could get sued by the possible offender.

[Flan]

Unfortunately it was just an accusation, unproven and untried so in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.  And if the company signed a non disclosure agreement, it could be considered against the law for someone to inform a new employer.

While it might be morally right to alert them to the possibility, it would be against the law and the informer could get sued by the possible offender.

Which is why NDA's for non sensitive/confidential information is bull because it implies that anything bad about the offending company "can't" be known, especially legally (which the victim in the case should have lawyered up instead of settle).

I think your right. Recently CNN was reporting on the rape conviction of the two juvenile males of a 16 year old girl. CNN showed no concern about this girl whatsoever, and went on and on about what damage this conviction would do to these two boy's lives. It was sad and too expected these days.

Don't get me started on rapeville aka Steubenville. 

[suzifrommd]

While it might be morally right to alert them to the possibility, it would be against the law and the informer could get sued by the possible offender.

Well I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, and anyone can sue for anything, but I'll bite.

I disagree that it would be against the law to inform the employer.

The offender could try to sue the informer for libel, but to prove libel, the information must be untrue. The offender would have to tip the scales with proof that the allegations are false.

The informer couldn't be found liable based on the non-disclosure agreement, which is a contract binding only on the parties to the agreement.

And the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to a criminal court proceeding. Does not apply to a civil matter such as libel.

So legally, I think the informant would be in the right. I don't have an ethical problem with telling them. providing the informant is certain of the truth.

As far as OP's original question, the discussion would bother me if it seemed the class had no empathy toward why the victim might want to keep quiet.

Personally I'd like to believe I'd want to expose the creep, but I would understand someone who'd rather quietly take her settlement and put the whole ugly scene behind her.

[VanessaM]

Unfortunately it was just an accusation, unproven and untried so in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.  And if the company signed a non disclosure agreement, it could be considered against the law for someone to inform a new employer.

While it might be morally right to alert them to the possibility, it would be against the law and the informer could get sued by the possible offender.

I agree with you from a legal and administrative position and its why the ethics teacher chose it as a hypothetical for a case study because it pits the moral obligation against a legal and professional standard. It's something I acknowledged in class when we were debating it as a group.

The part that riled me up was my peer, rather than argue the case from a legal position which I could have easily listened to and comprehend; he immediately took the position that since the women did not want to go to court over the matter that they must be lying and the man was innocent of the allegations.

It didn't even come into his mind that going to trial is stressful, a public affair that allows everyone to see aspects of your personal life and the fact that the opposing lawyer is going to do everything he can to make you look an idiot or uncredible. He just said they were liars and couldn't be bothered to come to any other justification.

It infuriated me and I wanted to slam his head into the table. The scary part is that he's probably not the only person of the opinion after what Kkut and Flan mentioned; it makes the idea of transitioning for me just a bit more frightening to know that just being female is cause enough to come to these conclusions.

[Lesley_Roberta]

In the case of the example in the OPs post, hmm not sure. Legality being what it is and repercussions.

But in regards to when should assault be legal?

Well lets just say, if you attack a female in my presence, I send you on your way in an ambulance in dire condition.

I won't tolerate it, and I won't care if it had religious or cultural angles that some of the participants might think made it acceptable.

I won't care if the victim turns on me for trashing a family member for trying to abuse and injure her. I'll save her whether she likes it or not

I could say the same in connection to harming a child, only you might not make it to the hospital alive.

But I have seen toooooo many cases of badly misrepresented facts in the internet era. I tend to prefer to only respond to actions I witnessed personally. I can at least trust my own eyes and ears.

[Arch]

So if you SAY you are a victim of sexual assault but you don't pursue prosecution because you don't want public scrutiny, you can't POSSIBLY be telling the truth?

Uh-huh.